Back from VT. And since snow and cold were what I was looking for, I wasn’t disappointed a bit. They could actually have had a lot more and made me happy (and of course it fell as I was leaving).

As to this: “This is where things get tricky research-wise. Is the commonality of physical reports actually due to the population losing genetic diversity, random chance, OR is it due to people’s minds filling in the blanks with what they expect to see (a la P-G film). ”

Well, I’ve read lots of reports, and few of them even mention P/G. (IMHO, fewer people outside the crypto community have seen that film than we within it may think.) But most of them describe, from scratch, an animal that would make one think: this is either the thing in the P/G film, or something closely related to it. I tend – again having read many, many reports – to think that they need to be viewed openly and not with any result in mind. Read that way, they are very strong evidence, and IMHO are very strongly if only anecdotally associated with enough other kinds of evidence – every type that we have for animals we know about – that a scientist viewing the evidence objectively should consider further research imperative.

Every scientist who has done so agrees with me.

Not sure about the research you are talking about re: conformance to P/G; but similar studies of reports have shown not only consistency but conformance to biogeographical rules. They are beginning to write the encyclopedia entry “sasquatch.” In fact, they have. Random lies, illusions and misidentifications have a hard time behaving like biodata.

BTW, the guy who (says he) shot one in Manitoba in 1941 saw a still from P/G not long after the film was shot. It settled for him – finally – what kind of animal he had shot (and examined at leisure, close up). So it works that way too.

Any scientific search that is done must focus on an area of many recent reports (the data suggest several locations; bfro.net and texasbigfoot.com are the best sources I’m aware of) and must stay out there long enough either to gather proof or to make the team confident that the proof is there to be gotten. It can be done now, the problem of course being the overwhelming knee-jerk negativity to the topic that makes it, for now, unlikely.

Tullimonstrum:

“How on do people know how to distinguish false reports from non-false reports? It strikes me as a seriously non-trivial problem. No one has ever looked a the consistency of reports through time as far as I am aware…Even if consistency was high it is not clear to me that would be evidence for an underlying realilty behind the reports or not. I can see arguments both ways.”

Distinguishing false from non-false reports conclusively would be easier were the animal proven. As it isn’t, that’s harder to do. But I can say that the reports – one does have to read them – sound simply like people, the vast majority of whom did NOT want to see what they saw, nor thought there was any chance that something like that was real, saw something. They describe it consistently, using no reference point but their own experiences; they see it in the places where one might expect to see it; the kinds of people one would expect to see it most often are the ones that do; and the sightings are compellingly associated with other evidence.

As I said above: when a scientist approaches the sasquatch like a scientist, he either is convinced or says that research should continue until everyone is. No exceptions.

This sort of comment is made often (Heuvelmans said similar things). How on do people know how to distinguish false reports from non-false reports? It strikes me as a seriously non-trivial problem. No one has ever looked a the consistency of reports through time as far as I am aware…Even if consistency was high it is not clear to me that would be evidence for an underlying realilty behind the reports or not. I can see arguments both ways.

I re-iterate for those of us who have never seen sasquatch (i.e. evidence of our own eyes) there should be no such thing as sasquatch (at least as a premise for writing papers). It is a hypothetical construct to explain the reports. Reports exist and perhaps something like the hypothesized bigfoot will be discovered in the future. But for the moment our data is reports and photos and other stuff. That is scientists should work from. Bigfoot is the hypothesis to explain them. It is a reasonable hypothesis but one of several. Working backwards from the assumption there is a species common name bigfoot is where people go wrong.

Now a scientist may think it is a worthwhile investment of his/her time and energy to investigate bigfoot reports in the hope that a they represent evidence of an unknown animal but that should not be a premise of their scientific papers. Or perhaps they had compelling personal experience which they want to be vindicated. Or they could investigate cz reports because they think the underlying psychology/epistemology is interesting. But when writing papers they cannot start from the assumption bigfoot is a real animal because that premise cannot be demonstrated. They can start from the evidence though.

In the marine cryptozoological literature people don’t make the mistake of assuming sea serpents exist and they study reports. Check out the papers by Naish, Woodley, Paxton et al. All published in mainstream science journals. At least one of those authors self-identifies as both a skeptic and a cryptozoologist. Statistically we know that sea monster reports are biased but no such similar analysis has been done for bigfoot reports. Doing analyses like that does not require a belief in bigfoot and there is no reason whywhy a statistical analysis of bigfoot reports could not be published in the mainstream scientific literature.

BTW science can prove negatives, it cannot prove unbounded negatives. Science cannot answer the question “is there a God” it can (easily) answer the question “is there a ape-like creature that is not Homo sapiens in my bathroom” and with enough resources “in that there patch of Pacific northwest forest”.

Well, sure. But when lots of people are experiencing something that is so very consistent across time and geography that I could write the guidebook entry on the sasquatch now, and doesn’t sound at all like people are cribbing or comparing notes, there’s something that needs looking at. Frequency and coherence mark evidence that demands scientific scrutiny, and the eyewitness testimony to the sasquatch fills the bill.

While I am not discounting this I do have to remind you of an article that was published (on this site I believe, or it may have been in the comments) It documented that since the P-G film had become widespread and viewed by the population at large, more and more sightings had started to resemble Patty. Before that there would be great variations in colour and stature ranging from human size to truly gigantic proportions and everything from white to black (I think auburn and brown were the most common colours reported prior to 1965 or something of that nature with the whites and blondes more common East of the Mississippi River – will look for the link)

This is where things get tricky research-wise. Is the commonality of physical reports actually due to the population losing genetic diversity, random chance, OR is it due to people’s minds filling in the blanks with what they expect to see (a la P-G film). Not counting the sightings that were done at leisure, most sightings take place over the span of seconds in poor lighting conditions so, much like eyewitness testimony in a criminal case, it remains the least reliable evidence.

Although I do agree that a true scientific investigation should be done I just don’t think we have the physical means to launch a good one yet. Unless we have a specific area (it would have to be a reasonably small size) where we KNOW Bigfoot lives or at least frequents, how can scientists actually hope to find and study the animal? Particularly if Bigfoot possesses any amount of intelligence? (look at how chimps and gorillas manage to outwit their keepers, and these are well known and studied animals).

At this point we either have to wait for technology to catch up, an accidental shooting to happen, or plain dumb luck regarding GPS/tranquilizers or a researcher tripping over a carcass.

Have fun in Vermont, DWA, hope you don’t mind the newly fallen snow and sudden rush of cold air hitting us East Coasters this week. We’ve been pretty spoilt with the warm weather this Winter.

Stoosh: re: skeptics having responsibility for proving P/G fake. “Wrong. It’s up to the claimants for its veracity to have the evidence examined to establish corroboration. The claim is the proponent’s, not the examiner’s.”

Not sure you’re getting what I’m saying. The claim that there is enough evidence for the sasquatch to justify serious scientific scrutiny of that evidence to see what is causing it is the proponents’. They have satisfied that claim, as every qualified scientist I am aware of that has paid serious attention to the evidence agrees. What these people are NOT required to do is give time of day to the argument that, say, P/G is faked, because no evidence has been unearthed to support that claim. Proponents can therefore discard it until such evidence surfaces. (Going on 45 years now, and nada.) That doesn’t mean P/G and the sasquatch are real. It just means that the claim that they aren’t authentic is simply not supported by evidence. (Fakes that have been found don’t count as anything, any more than my dressing in a gorilla costume is evidence against the gorilla.) So, it’s time to get seriously looking, because all the evidence says we should look.

flame821 gets it right:

“True, science cannot prove a negative, however I understand where DWA is coming from. After all the testing, analysis and reconstructions that have been done on the P-G film showing that it would have been almost entirely impossible to fake with the technology of that time all it seems to take is one scoffer to go ‘nuh-huh, I still don’t believe it’ or yet another man claiming to be in the suit (even though none of them had the physical build or skeletal abnormalities to be mistaken for Patty)…”

Precisely. Bigfoot skeptics keep dredging up a claim that holds no water. It’s time for them to say, okay, maybe we need to get serious and shut these pesky proponents up once and for all. Science, get cracking!

Skeptical review of Meldrum’s book focused on his not giving any more than howdy-do see-ya-later to man-in-suit arguments. A scientist is not required to do any more than acknowledge for the record positions for which no evidence exists, nor to mount a diligent search for evidence backing such positions if his review points clearly in another direction. If the skeptics insist on P/G being fake, they have to show why, because otherwise that ship has long sailed and they’re just blocking serious science that could resolve the matter.

Tullimonstrum: “It is not true to say that self-styled skeptics don’t study the evidence. Skeptics publish books and peer reviewed papers reviewing evidence. The fact that most czers ignore those papers is not the fault of skeptics.”

You’ll have to show me one, at least one that seriously challenges either the P/G film or the sasquatch in general. I’m betting against you. Peer reviewed papers in areas that science doesn’t acknowledge risk having seriously wrong thinking set in stone. RAW properly cautioned against that. I’ve read things like Radford’s “Bigfoot at 50″ and the skeptical reviews of Meldrum’s book. They seriously lack analytical chops, and, in fact, don’t address either the evidence or the science at all. Unless you have something to show us.

And as to: “You could have a zero belief in cryptids and still be interested in cz as a psychological phenomena.” Well, you could simply approach the field confident that you have all the answers. That would simply be at odds with keeping an open mind. And it would ignore the evidence.

flame821: “Eye witness testimony, while often interesting is always subjective. …”

Well, sure. But when lots of people are experiencing something that is so very consistent across time and geography that I could write the guidebook entry on the sasquatch now, and doesn’t sound at all like people are cribbing or comparing notes, there’s something that needs looking at. Frequency and coherence mark evidence that demands scientific scrutiny, and the eyewitness testimony to the sasquatch fills the bill. As to the excited states of mind you are talking about: eyewitnesses have calmly stalked the one they encountered without being noticed, or observed it at leisure from tree stands, or casually studied the animal through their rifle scopes, debating, before deciding not to shoot (for reasons I have never considered unreasonable. Not everyone wants to Kill To Make History).

All the proponents are saying is all that RAW is saying: 100% denial and 100% acceptance are traps. All knowledge is provisional, based on what we know now. That changes.

Look. It appears you’re going to find something when you do.

And again: the proposition that you will find but fakes and hoaxes is untenable, as it is backed by zero evidence. Skeptics can provide that evidence, and yes, it is their job, as the scientists who have looked are satisfied it’s a dry hole, and that we need to accept the possibility that this is real. Show me a scientist who thinks otherwise and I’ll show you why he’s wrong. Try me.

Or else, do what RAW says you should be doing:

Argue with Meldrum, not me.

I know sceptics publish books but I suspect peer reviewed papers are more honoured in their absence than by the presence! Wasn’t there one involving buffallo hairs? I don’t think those who have been persuaded by the evidence for sasquatch are that much interested in same old same old in sceptical literature regarding sasquatch at least. Mainly because it is quite obviouse there is an entity called sasquatch and the fascinating and urgent thing is trying to find out what exactly it is. This endeavor has been going on a long long time and if people now believe in sasquatch it is because of long term exposure to the evidence which can rationaly be viewed as coming from sasquatch!

2
Could be a good thing if they move on to studying why some cannot deal with something new in the world and are sceptical to the point of irrationality. A study of why people believe in things like sasquatch and what is thought to be wrong with them has already been well done.

3
I dont think a good scientist would on the evidence regard sasquatch as just a hypothetical construct or think it has nothing to do with good science. The opportunity is there for good science but a relative minority of scientists have taken it up. Perhaps they worry too much about functioning in a certain regulated way and forgetting that throughout the history of science flexibilty and creative initiative has always been part of best science. Sasquatch is evidently something very special and this must be catered for.

4
I am pleased you give credence to eyewitness reports and I think in practice if not in a formal sense possible alternate explanations are ruled out in proper reports. I dont think blob-squatch pictures are accepted as definite but possible.
To meet your point about evidence gathering, seems a good idea and thats where scientists and science institutions should come in, why havn’t they, it seems irresponsible to me ? These in addition to those currently doing the research. They could then proudly call themselves cryptozoologists

By 3 I do not mean there are not unknown animals in the normal denier sence but that “cryptids” are *not* the raw data of cryptozoology to be proven or not proven. What we have as data (potentially) is eyewitness testimony for example. This reports (not sightings) may represent sighitngs of unknown animals or may not. To suggest the former, work needs to be done to reject ALL alternative explanations for the reports. Do cryptozoologists do this? No they obsess about different “types” of cryptid as if they really exist. The only thing we know exists are the reports. So if cz wants to be accepted by mainstream science it has got to wholly change its approach…forget about obsessing about cryptids and consider the potential evidence. That means lots of tedious statistical work on reports. Far less fun than going into the woods and speculating but potentially way better science

It’s up to the claimants for its veracity to have the evidence examined to establish corroboration. The claim is the proponent’s, not the examiner’s. Thus far, & probably for all time now, the PG film has no validatory evidence to show it’s probable.

True, science cannot prove a negative, however I understand where DWA is coming from. After all the testing, analysis and reconstructions that have been done on the P-G film showing that it would have been almost entirely impossible to fake with the technology of that time all it seems to take is one scoffer to go ‘nuh-huh, I still don’t believe it’ or yet another man claiming to be in the suit (even though none of them had the physical build or skeletal abnormalities to be mistaken for Patty) suddenly the P-G film is shoved back into the ‘well…..maybe’ area again. It gets disheartening to keep proving the same information over and over again. Especially when you know there are some people who will refuse to accept what you’ve shown/proven no matter what you do, short of dumping Patty’s carcass on their heads.

At some point we have to come to an agreement that based on scientific methods and technical review of the film this passes the sniff test and should be included on the side of positive evidence.

Okay, I think I understand what you’re saying. I believe the confusion came in when you used the term ‘crypto skeptic fringe’ but were referring to scofftics/scoffers and their evil twins, true believers. (basically anyone who has already decided what they want the answer to be and refuses to keep an open mind toward new evidence)

As for atheist and agnostic, I haven’t seen so much railing against god(s) as I have rage against religion. (And if you honestly think about it many religions do have some rather odd, and at times dangerous, traditions) Due to the confusion earlier I do wonder if you might be interchanging the two terms in your comments? I ask this because scientifically you cannot prove a lack of existence but you should be able to find evidence for existence. Same with Bigfoot and any other cryptid, there really is no way for science to prove it doesn’t exist, however lack of hard evidence leads us to believe ______ cryptid more than likely does not exist. (same as the agnostic/atheist views on god(s) )

Eye witness testimony, while often interesting is always subjective. Once again, using Bigfoot as an example. Most witnesses do not expect to see it, so when they are faced with a large animal with unusual features in an unfamiliar environment their ability to process and retain information TENDS to be compromised. More than likely due to adrenaline, poor viewing conditions and possibly shock. Now some people will be able to get passed this and give a decent account of what happened, most will not and their minds will fill in the ‘gaps’ with whatever seems appropriate. It is a well known and well documented fact that this happens. So while the eye witness accounts are a wonderful place to start they cannot be used as hard evidence. The footprints with the mid tarsal break on various terrains (something humans do not have and would be a pita to reproduce as a hoax) are far more compelling, but still not enough to put an entry into a zoology reference.

As for proving Bigfoot’s existence , I don’t see mainstream science actively pursuing that anytime soon, unfortunately. However science is the only reliable tool we have at our disposal and luckily pretty near anyone can do it. It simply takes a little training, a LOT of documentation and a boat load of patience. The biggest hang up is the cost of decent equipment and the time commitment.

However with technology improving every year I do have to wonder how long it will be before equipment that can scan for life signs within certain parameters will be available to the average joe. My best guess is hunters looking for bears (large mammal, weight of 250lb or higher as search parameters) will be the first to stumble upon one. Then the question will be what happens next? Shoot it? Photograph it? Get out of there and hope you can find it again with a larger group to back you up?